How do protestants explain history

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi,

As response to the initial post question which I found very interesting, I’m only speaking from sheer personal experience so I don’t mean this is why for all Protestants. Having been away from the Catholic Church for a long time and involved with many Charismatic Protestant groups/churches/ministries, IMHO it’s sheer historical ignorance. By and large, those Protestants I’ve known who even bother with any church history pretty much only go back to the Reformation as before that, they figure the main (Catholic) Church was so corrupt is was no longer Christian. I myself had this view somewhat for awhile til I studied church history more. The biggest thing that made me realize the truth of the Catholic Church was something Mother Angelica said that really cleared up my “corruption during the middle ages” hang up when she said, yes, there were corrupt popes and such then, but the holy sacraments were still preserved though all that time.

So, in my experience, it’s simply sheer ignorance of Church history and false teachings of what the Catholic church actually teaches.

Peace to all,
HA
 
p.s. I emphasize, I’m not speaking of all Protestants, and not their clergy! Just what I’ve observed.

blessings to all,
HA
 
I really don’t know how too. In my opinion they have no explanation. I’m not saying that I’m closed minded I just don’t see the historical evidence for a Protestant denomination to claim that they were the first Church.

If one looks at the actions of the early Christians they were Catholic from the start. In Acts, the apostles partook in the breaking of the bread.
 
=adawgj;12108269]I really don’t know how too. In my opinion they have no explanation. I’m not saying that I’m closed minded I just don’t see the historical evidence for a Protestant denomination to claim that they were the first Church.
Click to expand...
Well, there is only one “first Church”. It is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, that you and I and many other Christians confess on a weekly (or more often) basis. That aid, i think it foolish for a Lutheran to say Lutheranism was the first communion, institutionally. It just isn’t the case. What is the case is that, in our view, being Catholic does not necessarily mean being in communion with the Bishop or Rome, being Apostolic does not necessarily mean Apostolic Succession.
If one looks at the actions of the early Christians they were Catholic from the start. In Acts, the apostles partook in the breaking of the bread.
Click to expand...
Amen. They, you and we and many others break bread and receive His true body and blood.

Jon
 
So, in my experience, it’s simply sheer ignorance of Church history and false teachings of what the Catholic church actually teaches.

As a former Protestant, I can only agree with your experience as it coincides with my own. As an example, I have commented in a post regarding Our Blessed Mother and her sinlessness, that Martin Luther himself has been quoted (Luther’s Woks, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968) as having said, “She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin.” And, from the same source, “God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil.” He goes on to say in his Commentary on the Magnificat,“She is rightly called not only the mother of man, but also the Mother of God.”

This is a part of the history of the Protestant church that I never was aware of before I began to do research, both biblical and secular, historical. But one of the most illuminating facts that I came across in 22 years of trying to “find God” on my own was, the history of the King James Version (KJV) of the bible. First and foremost, I was shocked and appalled to learn that there were “versions” of what I had grown up knowing as “the inerrant Word of God.” Adding to the fact that words had been edited and changed, I also learned that certain books had been removed 274 years AFTER it was composed, and that occurred in the United States. Martin Luther himself, would not have approved of books in the bible being removed as he was certainly aware of such scriptures as;

Deuteronomy. 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

Proverbs 30:5-6 “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.”

Revelation 22:18-19 “For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

But that IS what happened in 1885, 274 AFTER the KJV was composed in 1611. If any protestant does not believe that, I humbly invite them to investigate this website; kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/. This reference speculates on possible reasons for the books being removed, but admits that reasons are unknown.

At any rate, I pray for those who are like I was; faithfully and unquestioningly (sola fide) accepting what I was taught by my protestant pastors, teachers, ministers, deacons, and family members, who faithfully accepted what they learned from the same. Once I learned of these, and many other facts, I began to search for what God said, not what MAN edited in the most sacred of writings. It was a long journey, academically. I never asked for God to lead me to the one church where I felt His presence. I thought (with unintentional arrogance) that I could find Him on my own through researching copies of the earliest biblical writings (apocrypha, pseudopigrapha, didache, etc.). 22 years and several denominations later, my wife finally asked if I had ever prayed about the dilemma I faced. That is what I now call my “duh moment.” I prayed. I couldn’t even finish the thought in my prayer before I felt(?), heard(?), the clear intention that God had for me. 22 years is a lot less than 40 years in the wilderness, but I guess that is what it took for me to not “find God,” but to “see” Him.

I pray for the enlightenment of all our brothers and sisters who follow in faith, the teachings of those who speak of God in the protestant churches and homes they encounter. I pray that it not be troubling for them to have such epiphanies thrust upon them. I pray with gratitude frequently, for His grace and His mercy and forgiveness. Glory to God in the highest.

Peace be with you.
 
PaulScotus,

Wow, can I relate to what you’ve written as I’ve also experienced it. 22 years is about right for me too. Amazingly, my strong Catholic Dad thought it was a “phase” when I told him I was going to a non-denom Charismatic church–I had no idea then he was right, nor did I ever dream it would not only be sort of a phase but be over 20 years! Today I battle with myself on why I ever left.

Anyway, as I was reading your post, I thought about how the KJV had the apocrypha originally too and then you mentioned it! I actually own an antique KJV from 1856 that has the entire apocrypha. Have you ever run into any KJ-Only ppl in your wilderness? My word! That’s quite an example of ignorance, especially those who think the apocrypha is some “Catholic thing”. As you know, it goes back to before the time of Christ and the Jews were split over that then.

Thanks for that Luther quote too-I didn’t know that but is good to know.

I’m pretty new here, well a “re-tread” as I’ve been off and on but recently rejoined. Just like the Catholic Church, I just couldn’t be away forever but am “Here Again”. Hope to see you around here too.

blessings to all,
HA
 
adawgj said:
I really don’t know how too. In my opinion they have no explanation. I’m not saying that I’m closed minded I just don’t see the historical evidence for a Protestant denomination to claim that they were the first Church.

If one looks at the actions of the early Christians they were Catholic from the start. In Acts, the apostles partook in the breaking of the bread.
Click to expand...
But they certainly exist. From some Baptists with their “Trail of Blood” theory which posits that the first Christians were actually Baptists. (note not many Baptists take this theory seriously any longer).

There are also Seventh Day Adventists who latch onto every heresy that came down the line to ‘prove’ that they are the original Christians. Their ‘prophetess’ claimed in ‘her’ book “THE GREAT CONTROVERSY” by filling that volume with inacuraccies about history. TGC was later proven to have been plagerised. So much for ‘prophetess’ Ellen.

The acapella southern ‘churches of Christ’ along with the LDS Mormons think that the original church ‘apostacised’ it’s way out of existence until it was restored back by Thos and Alexander Campbell, and by Joseph Smith respectively.
 
what simply fascinates me is how all religions are really based on tradition. When I was away from the Catholic Church, I thought “tradition” was a bad thing and it was something just Catholics believed in. Turns out, it’s just the Catholic tradition goes back much further than the non-Catholic churches I was in. Most of those only went back to about 1902 with the Azusa Street revivals!

So many churches who are against tradition and claim to be Bible-only are as filled with tradition as any, IMHO. They most certainly were in those I was affiliated with, even though they didn’t realize it.

peace and blessings,
HA
 
hereagain said:
PaulScotus,

Wow, can I relate to what you’ve written as I’ve also experienced it. 22 years is about right for me too. Amazingly, my strong Catholic Dad thought it was a “phase” when I told him I was going to a non-denom Charismatic church–I had no idea then he was right, nor did I ever dream it would not only be sort of a phase but be over 20 years! Today I battle with myself on why I ever left.

Anyway, as I was reading your post, I thought about how the KJV had the apocrypha originally too and then you mentioned it! I actually own an antique KJV from 1856 that has the entire apocrypha. Have you ever run into any KJ-Only ppl in your wilderness? My word! That’s quite an example of ignorance, especially those who think the apocrypha is some “Catholic thing”. As you know, it goes back to before the time of Christ and the Jews were split over that then.

Thanks for that Luther quote too-I didn’t know that but is good to know.

I’m pretty new here, well a “re-tread” as I’ve been off and on but recently rejoined. Just like the Catholic Church, I just couldn’t be away forever but am “Here Again”. Hope to see you around here too.

blessings to all,
HA
Click to expand...
My Protestant mother was very upset with me when I told her that I felt compelled to stand at the door of the Catholic Church, and knock. She knows me well enough to know that it isn’t a phase, although when I began my initial walk into that metaphorical wilderness where it seems we both wandered, she was bewildered as to why I would question the inerrancy of the KJV. She asked me, with great distress, what I hoped to discover by reading collections (“bibles,” from the Greek word, “bibliotheca,” meaning “library,” which is a collection of books, or texts) such as the apocrypha and others. I told her of the history behind the KJV and explained that I was sure that the Son of God knew what those other books disclosed. So I investigated them, against her wishes.

I have never had the opportunity to examine a KJ bible with the apocryphal, or deuterocanonical texts included, I wish I had. I was focused on the earliest bible versions that I could find the predated the KJV. I wanted a translated copy of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. I used those bibles and cross referenced them against the KJV and the NIV (I had at the time, just recently learned of the NIV) to see what had been changed. But my main focus was on the Protestant Reformation and those who were called the Fathers of that movement (Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, etc.), and what made them leave the Catholic Church and why anyone would follow them ( Galatians 1: 6-10 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.).

And yes, I have met several KJ only (sola scriptura) people. I went to a "non-denominational protestant church (among many other protestant churches of different denominations) hoping that it would be represenative of ALL Christians and would use the same bible as the Catholic church. Yes, I was naive! I had a long conversation with the Minister of that church regarding all of the histories and bible editing that I have been mentioning here. To my excitement, he said that he agreed with everything that I said! Then, the other shoe dropped as he slapped his hand down on the KJB on his desk and said that he was confident that the KJV was exactly what God wanted us to know, and nothing else! I was shocked! I simply could not believe that the man I had spoken with in such detail regarding the historicity of the bible, would suddenly make such an exclamation. That minister was one of many I have met which have insisted on the “inerrancy” of the KJV even in the face of empirical evidence. I thought I would be alone in my “wilderness” forever, dragging my wife and kids with me from denomination to denomination until I found the one where I felt God was without Him being rationalized. Like I said earlier, it has been a long journey. And all I had to do was pray, and my journey would have ended where I am now, but years sooner. I can laugh about it now! God’s time. God’s purpose. God’s glory.

I look forward to see you around as well. Peace be with you, HA.
 
Hi Paul,
Fascinating story! Thanks for posting that.

That whole KJ only thing is simply amazing. At least there are many more scholarly Protestants who know it’s not exactly the best version there is, and like church history, those who do I personally think do so out of ignorance. I’ve even heard (more in the media than in person) of those who actually believe Jesus and the disciples spoke KJ English!

The latest non-denom with me was/is about as bad as they like “The Message” Bible which is a sheer very loose paraphrase. To me, that’s no longer a Bible but a summary of one’s interpretation of the holy scriptures. At least they don’t believe it’s the only version but they certainly have favored it.

I wish my long journey home was simpler but it is not. That I’ll save for another thread sometime.

What I come back to time and time again with this issue is the fact that the Catholic Church is who canonized the scriptures! Do the KJ-Only’s realize if there were no Catholic Church, there’d be no New Testament, even in King James English?

To balance this post out, I like the KJV in general, and the NKJV was my primary translation for the vast majority of my Protestant years. I think at the time the KJ read very well. In the preface of the original, anyway I think that’s where it was written, it said it was a translation “for the boy who drives the plough”. That also is fascinating when in the past however many years it’s been consider a “scholarly” version! Times and language change. I also read in a Bible translations book (by a Protestant) years ago that “there’s no reason why God’s word should be stuck in 17th century English.”

Well, I could go on and on and hopefully haven’t said too much already. All of the above is personal opinion and I try to respect the differences among all Christians.

I would like to hear more about your journey sometime.

Blessings to us all,
Here Again
 
hereagain said:
Hi Paul,
Fascinating story! Thanks for posting that.

That whole KJ only thing is simply amazing. At least there are many more scholarly Protestants who know it’s not exactly the best version there is, and like church history, those who do I personally think do so out of ignorance. I’ve even heard (more in the media than in person) of those who actually believe Jesus and the disciples spoke KJ English!

The latest non-denom with me was/is about as bad as they like “The Message” Bible which is a sheer very loose paraphrase. To me, that’s no longer a Bible but a summary of one’s interpretation of the holy scriptures. At least they don’t believe it’s the only version but they certainly have favored it.

I wish my long journey home was simpler but it is not. That I’ll save for another thread sometime.

What I come back to time and time again with this issue is the fact that the Catholic Church is who canonized the scriptures! Do the KJ-Only’s realize if there were no Catholic Church, there’d be no New Testament, even in King James English?

To balance this post out, I like the KJV in general, and the NKJV was my primary translation for the vast majority of my Protestant years. I think at the time the KJ read very well. In the preface of the original, anyway I think that’s where it was written, it said it was a translation “for the boy who drives the plough”. That also is fascinating when in the past however many years it’s been consider a “scholarly” version! Times and language change. I also read in a Bible translations book (by a Protestant) years ago that “there’s no reason why God’s word should be stuck in 17th century English.”

Well, I could go on and on and hopefully haven’t said too much already. All of the above is personal opinion and I try to respect the differences among all Christians.

I would like to hear more about your journey sometime.

Blessings to us all,
Here Again
Click to expand...
The “boy who droves the plough” phrase was William Tyndale’s.

GKC
 
PaulScotus said:
My Protestant mother was very upset with me when I told her that I felt compelled to stand at the door of the Catholic Church, and knock. She knows me well enough to know that it isn’t a phase, although when I began my initial walk into that metaphorical wilderness where it seems we both wandered, she was bewildered as to why I would question the inerrancy of the KJV. She asked me, with great distress, what I hoped to discover by reading collections (“bibles,” from the Greek word, “bibliotheca,” meaning “library,” which is a collection of books, or texts) such as the apocrypha and others. I told her of the history behind the KJV and explained that I was sure that the Son of God knew what those other books disclosed. So I investigated them, against her wishes.

I have never had the opportunity to examine a KJ bible with the apocryphal, or deuterocanonical texts included, I wish I had. I was focused on the earliest bible versions that I could find the predated the KJV. I wanted a translated copy of the Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. I used those bibles and cross referenced them against the KJV and the NIV (I had at the time, just recently learned of the NIV) to see what had been changed. But my main focus was on the Protestant Reformation and those who were called the Fathers of that movement (Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, etc.), and what made them leave the Catholic Church and why anyone would follow them ( Galatians 1: 6-10 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.).

And yes, I have met several KJ only (sola scriptura) people. I went to a "non-denominational protestant church (among many other protestant churches of different denominations) hoping that it would be represenative of ALL Christians and would use the same bible as the Catholic church. Yes, I was naive! I had a long conversation with the Minister of that church regarding all of the histories and bible editing that I have been mentioning here. To my excitement, he said that he agreed with everything that I said! Then, the other shoe dropped as he slapped his hand down on the KJB on his desk and said that he was confident that the KJV was exactly what God wanted us to know, and nothing else! I was shocked! I simply could not believe that the man I had spoken with in such detail regarding the historicity of the bible, would suddenly make such an exclamation. That minister was one of many I have met which have insisted on the “inerrancy” of the KJV even in the face of empirical evidence. I thought I would be alone in my “wilderness” forever, dragging my wife and kids with me from denomination to denomination until I found the one where I felt God was without Him being rationalized. Like I said earlier, it has been a long journey. And all I had to do was pray, and my journey would have ended where I am now, but years sooner. I can laugh about it now! God’s time. God’s purpose. God’s glory.

I look forward to see you around as well. Peace be with you, HA.
Click to expand...
Paul, you can find an English translation of the Septuagint in the Old Testament section in the ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE.
 
andrewstx said:
Paul, you can find an English translation of the Septuagint in the Old Testament section in the ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE.
Click to expand...
Thank you, andrewstx, I am grateful for the information and am eager to obtain the Orthodox Study Bible. I am also grateful for the “pilgrim app” for my iphone by the Orthodox church. It allows me to access the didache when I’m away from my home and it has information that appeals to me spiritually. Peace be with you.

Paul
 
hereagain said:
Hi Paul,
Fascinating story! Thanks for posting that.

That whole KJ only thing is simply amazing. At least there are many more scholarly Protestants who know it’s not exactly the best version there is, and like church history, those who do I personally think do so out of ignorance. I’ve even heard (more in the media than in person) of those who actually believe Jesus and the disciples spoke KJ English!

The latest non-denom with me was/is about as bad as they like “The Message” Bible which is a sheer very loose paraphrase. To me, that’s no longer a Bible but a summary of one’s interpretation of the holy scriptures. At least they don’t believe it’s the only version but they certainly have favored it.

I wish my long journey home was simpler but it is not. That I’ll save for another thread sometime.

What I come back to time and time again with this issue is the fact that the Catholic Church is who canonized the scriptures! Do the KJ-Only’s realize if there were no Catholic Church, there’d be no New Testament, even in King James English?

To balance this post out, I like the KJV in general, and the NKJV was my primary translation for the vast majority of my Protestant years. I think at the time the KJ read very well. In the preface of the original, anyway I think that’s where it was written, it said it was a translation “for the boy who drives the plough”. That also is fascinating when in the past however many years it’s been consider a “scholarly” version! Times and language change. I also read in a Bible translations book (by a Protestant) years ago that “there’s no reason why God’s word should be stuck in 17th century English.”

Well, I could go on and on and hopefully haven’t said too much already. All of the above is personal opinion and I try to respect the differences among all Christians.

I would like to hear more about your journey sometime.

Blessings to us all,
Here Again
Click to expand...
Hi HA,
I have never heard of “The Message Bible.” I am sure that there are several versions which I haven’t heard of, but it still amazes me, though I’ve said it here before, that anyone would be so audacious as to rewrite God’s word. And yes, I have wondered before about how the protestants reconcile the canonization of the bible during the Council of Nicea. Yet, several protestant denominations claim to be “the first church.”

As for reading “the” bible from this point forward, I have been reading the Douay Rheims as well as the New American Bible. What Bible do you use? What Bible does the Holy Catholic Church use? When I had my inquiry class, I noticed the bible being used by our pastoral associate was the NAB.
 
PaulScotus said:
Hi HA,
I have never heard of “The Message Bible.” I am sure that there are several versions which I haven’t heard of, but it still amazes me, though I’ve said it here before, that anyone would be so audacious as to rewrite God’s word. And yes, I have wondered before about how the protestants reconcile the canonization of the bible during the Council of Nicea. Yet, several protestant denominations claim to be “the first church.”

As for reading “the” bible from this point forward, I have been reading the Douay Rheims as well as the New American Bible. What Bible do you use? What Bible does the Holy Catholic Church use? When I had my inquiry class, I noticed the bible being used by our pastoral associate was the NAB.
Click to expand...
The Council of Nicea didn’t canonize the bible. The Council of Nicea was about the divinity of Jesus against the Arian position.
 
Thank you for the correction. That’s what I get for logging on so late at night. Peace be with you.
 
Adamski said:
What I mean is if Luther or Calvin didn’t have direct contact from God like Mosses or Peter what gives them the right to come up with a new belief system 1500 years after jesus
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit is an interesting person.
 
PaulScotus said:
I have wondered before about how the protestants reconcile the canonization of the bible during the Council of Nicea. Yet, several protestant denominations claim to be “the first church.”
Click to expand...
This is a good question.

I have wondered exactly why certain churches call themselves the first, second, or whatever number.

It can’t be because they feel that they are the first church ever founded.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top